America faces a repeat of its last disastrous military intervention in this
region, after President Ronald Reagan sent US Marines to Lebanon

As American military chiefs put the finishing touches to their plans for launching air strikes against Syria, they would do well to remember the disastrous fate that befell their last attempt to intervene militarily on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean.

In 1982, when Ronald Reagan dispatched a 1,800-strong force of US Marines to neighbouring Lebanon, he was acting in response to an international outcry over the murders of hundreds of innocent civilians in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps. By authorising military intervention in the conflict, Mr Reagan sought to prevent further massacres of the civilian population. Britain, France and Italy also deployed forces to Beirut as part of a UN-sponsored multinational force seeking to bring an end to Lebanon’s brutal civil war.

Within a year the mission had ended in tragedy, when 299 American and French servicemen were killed after Iranian-backed terrorists drove two truck bombs into separate buildings housing their forces. For America, the 241 fatalities represented the deadliest single attack suffered by forces since the Second World War, while France experienced its worst military loss since the end of the Algerian conflict. (The small British contingent escaped unscathed.) Within weeks, the UN force had been withdrawn, and the US-led coalition’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war brought to an ignominious end.

As things stand, no one expects that America and those allies that are willing to support military action against the Assad regime might suffer the same fate, not least because none of those countries pushing for intervention in Syria is arguing in favour of deploying ground forces. When John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, who has emerged as the chief cheerleader for a military response, suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this week that America might be forced to deploy “boots on the ground” to prevent chemical weapons falling into the hands of Islamist terror cells, he was forced to issue a hasty retraction.

Assuming that Barack Obama succeeds in his quest to win Congressional support for military action, the most likely scenario is a series of aerial strikes aimed at degrading the regime’s ability to terrorise the civilian population, the majority of them launched from warships and submarines based in the Mediterranean. As with the Libyan campaign two years ago, the only “boots on the ground” in Syria will be units of special forces deployed to ensure the missiles hit their targets.

A series of air strikes might assuage the growing clamour for action to prevent Assad conducting further chemical weapons attacks against his own people, but they are unlikely to end the conflict, particularly if the Obama administration decides to act without UN backing. Vladimir Putin is not the only one who believes that military strikes undertaken without UN approval would be considered an act of aggression. This would certainly be the view of President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite clique in Damascus, who would feel that they were perfectly justified in launching retaliatory action.

When it comes to rogue states such as Syria, this is more likely to take the form of terrorist attacks such as the Americans and French suffered 30 years ago in Beirut, rather than more conventional military strikes, which, given the technical superiority of American equipment, would most likely fail. But as Nato forces have discovered in Afghanistan to their cost, suicide attacks and roadside bombs can be just as deadly as the most sophisticated cruise missiles.

The other factor that must be taken into consideration is the likely impact Western air strikes against the Assad regime will have on the wider region. An estimated two million Syrians have already fled the country, creating a refugee crisis that is causing great hardship in neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, where destitute families are living in appalling conditions. Fear of being hit by a rogue American or French missile could persuade millions more Syrians to flee their homes.

But arguably the greatest risk involved in attacking Assad is that it will lead to a broader escalation of the conflict. The fact that, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, thousands of Israelis have been dusting off the gas masks they first wore during the initial Gulf War against Iraq in 1991 suggests they have genuine concerns that Damascus could retaliate by attempting to attack the Jewish state with chemical weapons.

The estimated 500-1,000 tons of chemical weapons that have been stockpiled in Syria in recent decades were originally acquired to defend the country against the possibility of an Israeli invasion. But having used chemical weapons on the Syrian people, the Assad clan might be tempted to use the same lethal agents against its long-standing enemies in Israel, thereby igniting a conflict that would rapidly spread. By test-firing two missiles this week, Israel sent an unambiguous signal that it is ready to defend itself against any potential threat.

In any conflict, those responsible for initiating military action should always remember the laws of unintended consequences – that even the best-planned military operations have a nasty habit of escalating out of control. If Mr Obama believes that launching air strikes against Syria will be the limit of America’s involvement in the conflict, he should think again.